What do you think?
Rate this book
The Biological Basis of Human Freedom.
This book interprets some of the philosophical implications of modern biology in simple, non-technical terms. The author shows that human evolution is unique in the living world. He explains that man is the only biological species with a highly developed capacity for symbolic thought and the use of language, and with a complex body of tradition known as culture. He describes how culture, the exclusive property of man, is transmitted from generation to generation by means of instruction, precept, imitation, and learning, rather than by genes in the sex cells as in biological heredity.
145 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1956
About the author
Theodosius Dobzhansky
67 books32 followersTheodosius Grygorovych Dobzhansky (Ukrainian: Теодо́сій Григо́рович Добжа́нський; Russian: Феодо́сий Григо́рьевич Добржа́нский) , Ph.D. (University of Leningrad, 1927; B.S., Biology, University of Kiev, 1921), was a prominent geneticist and evolutionary biologist, one of the central figures in modern evolutionary synthesis; his major work concerning the latter is "Genetics and the Origin of Species", published in 1937. He emigrated to the USA in 1927 on a scholarship from the Rockefeller Foundation.
Dobzhansky was the recipient of the National Medal of Science in 1964 and the Franklin Medal in 1973.
Dobzhansky was the recipient of the National Medal of Science in 1964 and the Franklin Medal in 1973.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 18, 2016
Dobzhansky’ argument runs as follows: (1) We are the products of mutation and natural selection; (2) this has led to the development of mind, culminating in human intelligence; and (3) free choice and human culture has replaced the mutation-natural selection adaptation process. By “The Biological Basis of Human Freedom” (the book’s title), Dobzhansky means not only this capacity for free choice, but also freedom from our animal past.
In Dobzhansky’s view, ideas, reason, experience and culture determine what we do and how we do what we do. This is fundamental to his distinction between genotype (in-born essence) and phenotype (the genotype as modified by the environment). Through free choice, we modify who we are. This is how we adapt. It is also how we are not animal. Where animals are adapted to the environment (genetically, through natural selection) humans adapt themselves to their environment through information that is (non-genetically) transferred from generation to generation. “Man,” Dobzhansky writes, “is the only biological species which managed to free itself in part from this limitation of biological heredity. He did so by evolving the transmission of culture, which is a new, nonbiological heredity.”*
From this general viewpoint, Dobzhansky states that there can be no biological basis for ethics. There’s no gene that tells us what to do, he says. That task lies with us. Dobzhansky says we have a “moral sense” and that “admiration of the good and disapprobation of the bad is ineradicable from the human mind.” That good for humans, he goes on to say, is “the development of the cerebral functions of intelligence,” which “seems to have been the dominant trend in human evolution. Continuation of intellectual development becomes, then, a moral duty of mankind,” presumably because this gives us the capacity to ferret out right and wrong as well as to adapt generally to the environment. Regarding the tension between self-interest and society, Dobzhansky also states that “All the great literatures and philosophies have struggled to resolve this conflict, and most of them have found that the only solution is to accept a divine sanction as the foundation of ethics.”**
Dobzhansky acknowledges that we have an inborn, “constitutional,” nature of sorts. But this seems to be about the routine functions and our physical and physiological structures, and not so much about the emotions, which are those value-laden, built-in ends that provide direction and the “reason” for action. While Dobzhansky’s focus is on the cognitive component of behavior that tells us what to do and how to do it, he does not explain why we make the decisions we do. We are social beings he says, but why are we social? Answers to that question from an evolutionary perspective pulls in a full suite of powerful, emotion-infused behavioral tendencies (tribalism, loyalty, gratitude, cooperation, competition, hierarchy, nurturing, etc.) that we see all around us, every day. And we fear threats to our ability to seek as well as the threats to what we have and want, which also brings in a full suite of evaluative and emotive behaviors (e.g., dislike, distrust, anger and hatred). Dobzhansky also glosses over an evolutionary perspective that sheds light on the tension between self and group that he mentions. With a group we survive and this explains our social and cooperative nature. We also see dominance and deception, which allows self-interest to promote itself within the confines of the group. Given genetic variability at the genotypic level (which Dobzhansky acknowledges), it’s reasonable enough to speculate that genotypic expression occurs in both polar forms (egoistic-social, both of which have survival value) and everything in between, and we see this regularly enough in our daily lives.
Emotion structures provide a more realistic explanation of what makes us tick, as individuals and as group members. But there’s still this question of ethics and who we ought to be. Here too evolutionary biology can help. Like all of life, we need to be free to express our nature. This is a very different way to look at Dobzhansky’s notion of freedom. Ultimately, we are self-interested bodies. How can our freedom be compatible with the freedom of others to pursue their self-interest? This is the Hobbesian dilemma. Hobbes’ solution was the Leviathan, but it need not be this. The very intellectual capacity that Dobzhansky touts can help us out. First, through self-reflection, we can reflect on those deeper motivations that are driving us, bring them to the surface and see the implications for our self-interest. We can see that it’s in our self-interest to respect others by restricting ourselves in deference to the needs of others to promote their own interests. Of course, a good many individuals and cultures are egocentric and group centric (highly tribal) and have no motivation to restrict themselves vis-à-vis others. Their modus operandi is to overpower and dominate. This requires external restriction (laws, institutions) and the use of countervailing power.
*Dobzhansky repeatedly states that we are the products of both heredity/nature and environment/nurture. The argument for heredity and nature is that we are substantially influenced by genetic propensities across a wide swath of behavior. But this is not what Dobzhansky means. His argument is that heredity-nature gave us the intellectual capacity to free ourselves of our biology. Biology, in other words, formed mind and culture has taken it from there.
**Ernest Mayr is said to have observed that Dobzhansky believed that God creates through evolution. This may be in reference to the following quote from Dobzhansky’s book: “Evolution is the method whereby Creation is accomplished.”
In Dobzhansky’s view, ideas, reason, experience and culture determine what we do and how we do what we do. This is fundamental to his distinction between genotype (in-born essence) and phenotype (the genotype as modified by the environment). Through free choice, we modify who we are. This is how we adapt. It is also how we are not animal. Where animals are adapted to the environment (genetically, through natural selection) humans adapt themselves to their environment through information that is (non-genetically) transferred from generation to generation. “Man,” Dobzhansky writes, “is the only biological species which managed to free itself in part from this limitation of biological heredity. He did so by evolving the transmission of culture, which is a new, nonbiological heredity.”*
From this general viewpoint, Dobzhansky states that there can be no biological basis for ethics. There’s no gene that tells us what to do, he says. That task lies with us. Dobzhansky says we have a “moral sense” and that “admiration of the good and disapprobation of the bad is ineradicable from the human mind.” That good for humans, he goes on to say, is “the development of the cerebral functions of intelligence,” which “seems to have been the dominant trend in human evolution. Continuation of intellectual development becomes, then, a moral duty of mankind,” presumably because this gives us the capacity to ferret out right and wrong as well as to adapt generally to the environment. Regarding the tension between self-interest and society, Dobzhansky also states that “All the great literatures and philosophies have struggled to resolve this conflict, and most of them have found that the only solution is to accept a divine sanction as the foundation of ethics.”**
Dobzhansky acknowledges that we have an inborn, “constitutional,” nature of sorts. But this seems to be about the routine functions and our physical and physiological structures, and not so much about the emotions, which are those value-laden, built-in ends that provide direction and the “reason” for action. While Dobzhansky’s focus is on the cognitive component of behavior that tells us what to do and how to do it, he does not explain why we make the decisions we do. We are social beings he says, but why are we social? Answers to that question from an evolutionary perspective pulls in a full suite of powerful, emotion-infused behavioral tendencies (tribalism, loyalty, gratitude, cooperation, competition, hierarchy, nurturing, etc.) that we see all around us, every day. And we fear threats to our ability to seek as well as the threats to what we have and want, which also brings in a full suite of evaluative and emotive behaviors (e.g., dislike, distrust, anger and hatred). Dobzhansky also glosses over an evolutionary perspective that sheds light on the tension between self and group that he mentions. With a group we survive and this explains our social and cooperative nature. We also see dominance and deception, which allows self-interest to promote itself within the confines of the group. Given genetic variability at the genotypic level (which Dobzhansky acknowledges), it’s reasonable enough to speculate that genotypic expression occurs in both polar forms (egoistic-social, both of which have survival value) and everything in between, and we see this regularly enough in our daily lives.
Emotion structures provide a more realistic explanation of what makes us tick, as individuals and as group members. But there’s still this question of ethics and who we ought to be. Here too evolutionary biology can help. Like all of life, we need to be free to express our nature. This is a very different way to look at Dobzhansky’s notion of freedom. Ultimately, we are self-interested bodies. How can our freedom be compatible with the freedom of others to pursue their self-interest? This is the Hobbesian dilemma. Hobbes’ solution was the Leviathan, but it need not be this. The very intellectual capacity that Dobzhansky touts can help us out. First, through self-reflection, we can reflect on those deeper motivations that are driving us, bring them to the surface and see the implications for our self-interest. We can see that it’s in our self-interest to respect others by restricting ourselves in deference to the needs of others to promote their own interests. Of course, a good many individuals and cultures are egocentric and group centric (highly tribal) and have no motivation to restrict themselves vis-à-vis others. Their modus operandi is to overpower and dominate. This requires external restriction (laws, institutions) and the use of countervailing power.
*Dobzhansky repeatedly states that we are the products of both heredity/nature and environment/nurture. The argument for heredity and nature is that we are substantially influenced by genetic propensities across a wide swath of behavior. But this is not what Dobzhansky means. His argument is that heredity-nature gave us the intellectual capacity to free ourselves of our biology. Biology, in other words, formed mind and culture has taken it from there.
**Ernest Mayr is said to have observed that Dobzhansky believed that God creates through evolution. This may be in reference to the following quote from Dobzhansky’s book: “Evolution is the method whereby Creation is accomplished.”
August 9, 2016
3 1/2 stars
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews